Doug Barton dougb at
Mon Aug 6 07:51:41 UTC 2012

On 08/06/2012 00:30, b. f. wrote:
> On 8/6/12, Doug Barton <dougb at> wrote:
>> On 07/31/2012 08:57, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
> <skipping quibbles and polemics>

Sure, whatever.

>> Just to be clear, you compile stuff with gcc 4.6, that is linked against
>> libgcc, and then you update to 4.7, with a new libgcc, and everything
>> still works? If so, that's great, I'm glad to hear that it's not a problem.
> For the most part, yes. 

In my mind, this isn't good enough. But I'm not in charge of anything. :)

> I think Gerald was referring to Bapt's plan to make it easier to make
> multiple packages from a single port, so that those who used packages
> exclusively could install a package consisting of only the runtime
> support libraries, rather than the whole compiler suite. 

Universal support for that is years away, minimum.

> I had
> patches to do this even without pkgng, but it made things a little
> more complicated, and didn't seem to be a high priority, so I didn't
> pursue it.  If people feel that it is important, I could work with
> Gerald to revive that, or use a knob like that of ports/155408 with
> static linking to allow users to remove the runtime dependency for a
> lot of software, at the cost of some added overhead from redundancies.

Making this change now would benefit a lot of people, now.



    I am only one, but I am one.  I cannot do everything, but I can do
    something.  And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
    I can do.
			-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list